Help with Paralysis and Sleep Poissons for 5th edition

[Grailknight]

31 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

CV can be Drained in 6e.

 

So having designed their venom, let's remember that these poissons should also have Water Breathing, "Cannot breathe air", Swimming, sell back their walking (maybe leave a meter for flopping around?) and perhaps some fluency in French.

 

ADDITION:

 

30 AP will be challenging to achieve effects this significant.  Perhaps a Damage over Time model - he's been affected by the Sleep potion and will [lose STUN; gain Transform points; whatever mechanic you have chosen] every [segment/phase/turn] until he passes out.

 

Actually, what about Change Environment?  We can have a one-target CE which forces a DEX roll to avoid falling over - so why not an EGO roll to avoid falling asleep, or a CON roll to avoid paralysis?

 

Because those types of uses for CE are too Abusively cheap for the cost.

[Duke Bushido]

Thanks, Hugh.

 

I just reread the whole thread looking to see who said "poisson"....

 

 

taking your suggestion seriously for a moment:

 

we are familiar with environments that can be treacherous: ice, hillsides, trembling tundra- situations like like earthquake, gusts of typhoons winds, etc.

 

what sort of environment onduces instant sleep?  All I can come go with is "room full of sleeping gas", but I think that moves more toward the attack mechanic of the gas as opposed to the environment.

 

so now I am just curious. 

 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

I actually did have a brief thought about sleep as a Change Environment attack, along the same lines as stun.  Then I realized it would either be too expensive to be practical or too cheap to be balanced.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Maybe its worth considering a broader examination of "states" that characters can be in such as drunk, asleep, stressed, frightened, sick and so on.  A more clear examination of each state and ways to attain that, maybe something in Change Environment which has morphed over the years from a way of creating a state in an area to doing things to people specifically.

[Grailknight]

18 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Thanks, Hugh.

 

I just reread the whole thread looking to see who said "poisson"....

 

 

taking your suggestion seriously for a moment:

 

we are familiar with environments that can be treacherous: ice, hillsides, trembling tundra- situations like like earthquake, gusts of typhoons winds, etc.

 

what sort of environment onduces instant sleep?  All I can come go with is "room full of sleeping gas", but I think that moves more toward the attack mechanic of the gas as opposed to the environment.

 

so now I am just curious. 

 

 

 

Only thing I can see is something that actually does occur naturally. One of those carbon monoxide pits that animals wander into and pass out. 

 

But that would need Constant, Invisible Power and a linked CE: Suffocation to properly model in game.

[Hugh Neilson]

21 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Thanks, Hugh.

 

I just reread the whole thread looking to see who said "poisson"....

 

 

taking your suggestion seriously for a moment:

 

we are familiar with environments that can be treacherous: ice, hillsides, trembling tundra- situations like like earthquake, gusts of typhoons winds, etc.

 

what sort of environment onduces instant sleep?  All I can come go with is "room full of sleeping gas", but I think that moves more toward the attack mechanic of the gas as opposed to the environment.

 

so now I am just curious. 

 

 

 

Having just taught a half day income tax update course, I may be able to offer a suggestion   I suppose carbon monoxide is a riff on your room full of sleeping gas, but note that CE defaults to single-target, not AoE, in 6e.

 

A room full of water induces drowning, doesn't it?

 

The issue with CE, as others have noted, is that forcing a roll or "something bad happens" easily becomes unbalanced.  But "-3 to all DEX rolls; everyone roll or fall down" strikes me as pretty powerful as well.

 

Of course, I am fine as "sleep is equivalent to unconsciousness", so an NND or STUN Drain would be close enough for me.

 

Oh, and it's the title that's fishy...

[Duke Bushido]

Thanks, Hugh.

 

I missed that _completely_!  (the title bit, I mean) 

 

 

 

Missed that, too (I only read 6e once), but I will immediately add it to the list of 6e rules that I am going to ignore the hell out of.   

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

A room full of water induces drowning, doesn't it?

 

Yes, but interestingly enough, we have an established mechanic for that, thanks to the Scourge from the Deep module back in 3e.

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

The issue with CE, as others have noted, is that forcing a roll or "something bad happens" easily becomes unbalanced.  But "-3 to all DEX rolls; everyone roll or fall down" strikes me as pretty powerful as well.

 

 

I may be the odd man out on interpretation, or I may have just completely misread it to mean "-3 to all DEX rolls," period.  That is, in a situation that required a DEX roll, you would suffer a minus 3 penalty because of the "environment."  I did not interpret it to read "take a penalty, and it forces a roll."  Again, I may be the odd man out, but if the rules now state "forces a roll," well, that's on the "ignore the hell out that nonsense" list, too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Of course, I am fine as "sleep is equivalent to unconsciousness", so an NND or STUN Drain would be close enough for me.

 

Thanks for the feedback on that (I admit I was curious), but I've pretty much moved into the "agree to disagree" camp.  The automated recovery mechanic for negative STUN tells me not to do it this way.  Yes: I bend many rules, _especially_ newer rules.  But when there isn't really a need to do that-- ie, Mind Control: you are getting sleepy....    or Transform: alert to asleep is going to be my preferred choice.

 

Though here's a waffle on the Mind Control option:

 

buying it versus CON, the target character would then make CON rolls to break out; I will pre-assume that we agree on that.  Here's the waffle: how does he decide to do that if he is asleep?     Certainly we can rule that it becomes an autonomic response of some sort-- the subconscious "just knows" something is fishy, but even that leads to some unreliable results _or_ some really, really permanent results at a high enough STR versus a frail enough target.

 

So I tended toward T-form.

 

Now you know.     Now you _all_ know!   Bwa-hahahahahaaa!

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Oh, and it's the title that's fishy...

 

gloob....gloob

 

 

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

20 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

Thanks, Hugh.

 

I missed that _completely_!  (the title bit, I mean) 

 

I suspect it registered for me due to an archer character many years back who had poisson arrows in his multipower...

 

20 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

Yes, but interestingly enough, we have an established mechanic for that, thanks to the Scourge from the Deep module back in 3e.

 

I recall the module,but I do not recall it providing any mechanic by which a power could induce suffocation or drowning.

 

20 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

I may be the odd man out on interpretation, or I may have just completely misread it to mean "-3 to all DEX rolls," period.  That is, in a situation that required a DEX roll, you would suffer a minus 3 penalty because of the "environment."  I did not interpret it to read "take a penalty, and it forces a roll."  Again, I may be the odd man out, but if the rules now state "forces a roll," well, that's on the "ignore the hell out that nonsense" list, too.

 

 Slippery ice was the common example.  -3 to DEX rolls and make a DEX roll or fall over.  Remove that from the rules and tell me how to create such a power.

 

20 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

Thanks for the feedback on that (I admit I was curious), but I've pretty much moved into the "agree to disagree" camp.  The automated recovery mechanic for negative STUN tells me not to do it this way.  Yes: I bend many rules, _especially_ newer rules.  But when there isn't really a need to do that-- ie, Mind Control: you are getting sleepy....    or Transform: alert to asleep is going to be my preferred choice.

 

Though here's a waffle on the Mind Control option:

 

buying it versus CON, the target character would then make CON rolls to break out; I will pre-assume that we agree on that.  Here's the waffle: how does he decide to do that if he is asleep?     Certainly we can rule that it becomes an autonomic response of some sort-- the subconscious "just knows" something is fishy, but even that leads to some unreliable results _or_ some really, really permanent results at a high enough STR versus a frail enough target.

 

So I tended toward T-form.

 

OK, so once we Transform the awake target to an Asleep target, he needs to recover the BOD at REC per week/month before he wakes up?  With 30 AP, it will take a few hits to put him under, but once he is under, that's pretty much hibernation...

[Chris Goodwin]

2 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

OK, so once we Transform the awake target to an Asleep target, he needs to recover the BOD at REC per week/month before he wakes up?  With 30 AP, it will take a few hits to put him under, but once he is under, that's pretty much hibernation...

 

In various sourcebooks, there are plenty of Transforms with the equivalent to "reverts naturally" as their reversal condition.  Two I recall off the top of my head are Transform: Water to Ice (ice melts) and Transform: Messy Room to Clean Room (becomes messy normally).  I'd assume Transform: Awake to Asleep would work similarly.  

 

While I still think there's a bigger mechanical difference between Knocked Out (game term) and asleep, I will concede that most combat uses of "go the **** to sleep" are best handled with STUN damage.  And they're also carrying Stun's baggage regarding recovery and the like.  

[Duke Bushido]

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

I suspect it registered for me due to an archer character many years back who had poisson arrows in his multipower...

 

   

 

If it was a typo, don't tell me!  I would much prefer to think it was done on purpose. 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

I recall the module,but I do not recall it providing any mechanic by which a power could induce suffocation or drowning.

 

It introduced a mechanic for drowning.  It remained unchanged in 4e, and I seem to recall it was pretty much unchanged in 5e.  I can't remember if it was changed-- or even included-- in 6e, but I suspect it was.  At any rate, it was "no recoveries while holding your breath" and "suffer END loss" and a couple of other things.  In theory, one could use it to represent no-breathable gasses, assuming there was no directly-poisonous elements involved.  At least, I've used it that way my ersatz Traveller game.  It seems to work reasonably well and nothing better has presented itself.

 

 

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

 Slippery ice was the common example.  -3 to DEX rolls and make a DEX roll or fall over.  Remove that from the rules and tell me how to create such a power.

 

I don't think I understand what you are asking here.  For Clarification:

 

Are you asking for something to force a Dex roll? 

 

Or are you asking for something to make a person fall?  If it's that second one, forgive me, my friend, but I'm not getting wrapped up in that "you couldn't knock people down until Aaron Allston created the Target Falls element!" style of conversation again. 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

OK, so once we Transform the awake target to an Asleep target, he needs to recover the BOD at REC per week/month before he wakes up?  With 30 AP, it will take a few hits to put him under, but once he is under, that's pretty much hibernation...

 

Chris beat me to it with the "reverts as normal" option, but even then, a really nice power Limitation would be "recover per Turn" or something similar, I think.  Power becomes less expensive; AP stays the same, of course.   Time Chart-based Advantages and Limitations are-- or at least, were-- fairly common build techniques and making a 30 AP Power significantly less effective shouldn't be a problem for too many GMs.  The savings might offset a cumulative Advantage as well.

 

 

 

 

[dmjalund]

"he sleeps with the fishes"

[Hugh Neilson]

17 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

   

 

If it was a typo, don't tell me!  I would much prefer to think it was done on purpose. 

 

 

I will state only that it was hand-written...

 

17 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

It introduced a mechanic for drowning.  It remained unchanged in 4e, and I seem to recall it was pretty much unchanged in 5e.  I can't remember if it was changed-- or even included-- in 6e, but I suspect it was.  At any rate, it was "no recoveries while holding your breath" and "suffer END loss" and a couple of other things.  In theory, one could use it to represent no-breathable gasses, assuming there was no directly-poisonous elements involved.  At least, I've used it that way my ersatz Traveller game.  It seems to work reasonably well and nothing better has presented itself.

 

Now we are back to what I recall, and it has not changed since, IIRC. However, until it was added to CE, there was no practical way to have a character envelop a target's head in a bubble of water, or an invisible force sphere, etc. to inflict "suffocation" on a target.

 

17 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

I don't think I understand what you are asking here.  For Clarification:

 

Are you asking for something to force a Dex roll? 

 

Or are you asking for something to make a person fall?  If it's that second one, forgive me, my friend, but I'm not getting wrapped up in that "you couldn't knock people down until Aaron Allston created the Target Falls element!" style of conversation again. 

 

Show me the slippery ice slide build and we can talk.  Or don't, if you prefer  

 

I will confess that am the one who pushed for non-martial combat maneuvers like Trip in 6e, though, to provide "normal people can do this" maneuvers.

[Duke Bushido]

I am all out of rep, and at work, so I cannit adress this properly, but I would like to thank and simultaneously rage at you for pushing for normal maneuvers.   The ever-increasing push for mechanics for eveything has proven to lead toward a minset that results in "okay, your kickback is more than enough to blast him completely off the roof!"

 

"Cool!  How much damage does he take after his nine-story drop?!"

 

"Did You buy the 'target falls' element on your martial kick?"

 

"Well, no....."

 

"Then he just kind of hovers there, stunned and very confused.."

 

 

 

I will try to reply properly later this evening.  As always, Sir: thank you playing. 

 

 

[schir1964]

22 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

I don't think I understand what you are asking here.  For Clarification:

 

Are you asking for something to force a Dex roll? 

 

Or are you asking for something to make a person fall?  If it's that second one, forgive me, my friend, but I'm not getting wrapped up in that "you couldn't knock people down until Aaron Allston created the Target Falls element!" style of conversation again. 

 

I can't speak for Hugh, but the way I took his comment based on what I know of the Change Environment example is this:

 

Normal movement or actions that work normally (without a DEX roll) on non-slippery surface but would require effort to successfully achieve when on a slippery surface (requires a DEX roll).

 

That gives a lot of leeway for making common sense judgments by the GM. Whether everyone will agree what is a common sense judgement or not ... 

 

 

[Duke Bushido]

9 minutes ago, schir1964 said:

I can't speak for Hugh, but the way I took his comment based on what I know of the Change Environment example is this:

 

Normal movement or actions that work normally (without a DEX roll) on non-slippery surface but would require effort to successfully achieve when on a slippery surface (requires a DEX roll).

 

That gives a lot of leeway for making common sense judgments by the GM. Whether everyone will agree what is a common sense judgement or not ... 

 

 

 

 

I see; thanks!

 

So, if I am interpreting this (I would have to drag out the book to get context; I am assuming I won't need it, but feel free to correct me) properly:

 

No; it does not impose Dex roll penalties to things that already require Dex rolls.

 

Yes; it forces a Dex roll, but only on those things that "require effort."

 

 

I would have to agree with you: that seems suitably open for GM judgement and 'common sense,' or what Steve refers to as "dramatic sense," because unlike most of us, he had enough "common sense" to know just how much being told that it's okay to use common sense inflames this crowd. 

 

From what you have posted (and again: I have access to the full text if I need it; I just don't relish dragging it down and pouring through it.  Ugh), I don't like it:  it doesn't increase existing Dex penalties, but does force a Dex check.  However, it does leave it open to GM moderation, which I appreciate.  Problematically, that doesn't fly in this crowd: never, _ever_ leave open to interpretation what can be replaced with an absolute mechanic!  Never!   

 

I kid, of course.

 

 

Sort of.

 

(I mean, have you seen the latest roll under / roll over thread?  Dude: Sudoku.  Get your math fix that way; it's supposed to be relaxing or something.      )

 

 

Thanks, schir!

 

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

The problem with "open to interpretation" means that, well, it is open to interpretations, and players and GMs may have different interpretations. 

 

From 6e v1 p 175

 

Quote

If applicable, the combat effect includes forcing an affected character to make at least one Characteristic, Skill, or PER Roll. For example, if a character is hit with a Change Environment that imposes a -3 to DEX Rolls, it doesn’t just affect any DEX Rolls he has to make for other reasons — he has to make a DEX Roll when hit, at the listed penalty. (The same would apply if he entered an Area-affecting -3 to DEX Rolls CE.)

 

Examples include a Confusion spell (-4 to INT rolls), the only one dealing specifically with characteristic-based rolls.

 

So the Ice Slide either forces a DEX roll to avoid falling, or forces falling unless you succeed at a DEX roll, depending on how you wish to phrase it.

[Duke Bushido]

9 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

The problem with "open to interpretation" means that, well, it is open to interpretations, and players and GMs may have different interpretations. 

 

From 6e v1 p 175

 

 

Examples include a Confusion spell (-4 to INT rolls), the only one dealing specifically with characteristic-based rolls.

 

So the Ice Slide either forces a DEX roll to avoid falling, or forces falling unless you succeed at a DEX roll, depending on how you wish to phrase it.

 

AH--

 

you're right; I should clarify:

 

By "forces a roll," I meant-- well, let's use an example.  I am brain-cooked today; day was far more demanding than usual. 

 

Okay, I cast Ice Slide!  Everyone make a Dex roll!

 

But-- I'm not doing anything!  I'm hiding behind this tree and waiting!

 

Make a Dex roll!

 

That's what I meant by "forces a roll."  You _must_ make a roll, regardless of circumstance.

 

The other-- if you want to run on the ice slide, for example-- you must make a Dex roll because you are trying to do something in an environment that would require a Dex roll to do that thing-- well, I have no problem with that.  

 

 

Quote

If applicable, the combat effect includes forcing an affected character to make at least one Characteristic, Skill, or PER Roll. For example, if a character is hit with a Change Environment that imposes a -3 to DEX Rolls, it doesn’t just affect any DEX Rolls he has to make for other reasons — he has to make a DEX Roll when hit, at the listed penalty. (The same would apply if he entered an Area-affecting -3 to DEX Rolls CE.)

 

 

I am going to argue-- not for the sake of arguing, mind you, but specifically because of the wording-- that the presence of the phrase "if applicable" means that no matter how hard a mechanic is laid down, it will always be open to interpretation, simply because someone has to decide if it is applicable.

 

Mind you, I'm not going to argue it tonight, because I've got a couple more threads to check on and I'm going to turn in a couple of hours early.    I was sincere: it's been a brutal day...

 

[tombrown803]

So, did someone fail the roll?

 

[Hugh Neilson]

14 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

AH--

 

you're right; I should clarify:

 

By "forces a roll," I meant-- well, let's use an example.  I am brain-cooked today; day was far more demanding than usual. 

 

Okay, I cast Ice Slide!  Everyone make a Dex roll!

 

But-- I'm not doing anything!  I'm hiding behind this tree and waiting!

 

Make a Dex roll!

 

That's what I meant by "forces a roll."  You _must_ make a roll, regardless of circumstance.

 

The other-- if you want to run on the ice slide, for example-- you must make a Dex roll because you are trying to do something in an environment that would require a Dex roll to do that thing-- well, I have no problem with that.

 

 

In could argue the "behind the tree" either way - the ice suddenly appeared beneath your feet, and is a lot more slippery than the dirt there before, so it is possible you will slip and fall based on where your feet were, how your weight was supported, etc.  But your should also get a bonus for having the tree there for support, even if I do not simply accept that you would not have any risk of slipping before you moved.

 

14 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

I am going to argue-- not for the sake of arguing, mind you, but specifically because of the wording-- that the presence of the phrase "if applicable" means that no matter how hard a mechanic is laid down, it will always be open to interpretation, simply because someone has to decide if it is applicable.

 

And therein lies the conundrum. 

 

We cannot fully remove judgment - RPG rules cannot possibly envision every possible circumstance, which is why they need GMs (and professional sports need referees/umpires, and the legal system needs judges). The question is one of striking a balance.  At an extreme "GM to determine" end, we could remove to hit and damage rolls.  The GM will rule on whether, in the circumstances, you were accurate enough to hit, and whether your hit was powerful enough to achieve any number of effects, from even noticed to deceased target.  As we don't want to play "I hit you! Fall down!!!"  "No, you missed me.", we set objective parameters to determine whether an attack hits or misses.  But we also allow for modifiers adjudicated, or even determined by, the GM to address the many possibilities the rules cannot perfectly predict.

 

In Monopoly, I don't get to attempt to outrace the "Go To Jail" card because I am using the "car" token and logically the car should have a chance to speed away and escape the police.  In a computer game, my flying snake might slip and fall prone on the ice simply because no one thought to program in an exception (that is, include a rule) that flying creatures and creatures with no legs cannot slip and fall prone on the ice.  Or even to allow creatueres that have no legs and/or can fly to be part of the game!